Exactly. Because a statistical correlation - such as the positive one between transgender suicide rates and a non-enabling society - does not necessarily imply a causal connection of any kind. You can easily find correlations between factors that are essentially random in association, even - as independent as two factors can be.

Click to expand...

So now you're refuting your earlier claim that "It's the non-enabled that have the suicide rate"? If there's no causal connection, that assertion is meaningless. But then, I fully expected that.

You used the term "genetic sex", in your only attempt so far to identify or describe the delusions transgender people supposedly suffer. The genetic sex determinant in humans is the XX, XY chromosome structure.

So we have nothing, again. You claim transgender people harbor delusions: what are you talking about? What delusions do they harbor?

Also just the simple definition of delusion...maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts. Such as denying the fact of genetic sex to the extent of changing the superficial appearance of gender. Identity being nothing more than a fixed belief.

Click to expand...

They don't deny what their genetic sex is, only that their gender identity corresponds to it. They "maintain fixed false beliefs" of physiologically contrary gender "even when confronted with facts" of physiological sex. Delusion doesn't require that they deny genetic sex, only that they hold false beliefs in the face of it. You don't have to deny radio waves to hold the false belief that they are controlling your thoughts.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

So now you're refuting your earlier claim that "It's the non-enabled that have the suicide rate"? If there's no causal connection, that assertion is meaningless.

Click to expand...

The meaning of my observation was that your claim of suicide risk from enabling had no data support, argument, or evidence behind it. Your claim was in conflict with the correlation visible in the physical evidence, which was positive for non-enabling and suicide rate.

But they don't. None of their beliefs appear to be physiologically false - they do not suffer from delusions of possessing anatomy they do not possess, for example, and their brain structures agree with their self-reports of mental functioning.

Every few pages, I have the irresistible urge to reiterate a central problem:
Since you can't possibly know anyone else's internal experience, why refuse to acknowledge that this is the case?
Since their gender identity is not your responsibility and poses no threat to you,
What gives you the right to make any determinations regarding it?

As society progresses it becomes (or has become) more tolerant of peoples personal preferences.

Not so long ago if you was homosexual you would be branded as insane (criminally insane in fact) and most likely be chemically castrated (just look at the terrible way Alan Turing was treated).

Not so long ago if you wore ripped jeans and Mohawk with rings in your face you would probably be institutionalised or told you had been possessed by the devil. If you announced you had been born in the wrong body/gender, something similar would probably happen.

People in the west can afford to be far more tolerant of what was once deemed unacceptably different as wealth, personal freedom and overall life security has increased. In western society a person telling you they feel they are a woman trapped in a mans body is highly unlikely to have any effect upon yourself.

In a less developed country or say perhaps a small tribe in an amazon rain forrest, such a statement may cause a great deal of alarm, is the person a man or a woman? will they be able to hunt, fight, protect the village from wild animals and intruders? it throws a whole other set of concerns into the mix.

People have more time nowadays to think about themselves and how they feel and how they want their lives to be, in the past (and perhaps in developing nations) people had to think more about their family and 'tribe' as a whole rather than their own personal needs and wants.

Personally I think its a good think that humanity is coming to the point where people can choose what they want to be (if indeed it is any choice at all), and if somebody says they feel they are a man/woman trapped in the wrong body, well that is no business of mine and if it makes them happy to change into the person they want to be, then all the better.

It does make me think of a South Park episode however when Randy feels he is a Dolphin born into the body of a man (very silly I know

In a less developed country or say perhaps a small tribe in an amazon rain forrest, such a statement may cause a great deal of alarm, is the person a man or a woman? will they be able to hunt, fight, protect the village from wild animals and intruders? it throws a whole other set of concerns into the mix.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Savages are not nearly as primitive as modern fundamentalists (Christian or Muslim) - and they're far more pragmatic.
Whatever a person is able to do well is useful to the tribe: you don't waste a good fletcher or diver or herbalist, just because they're not acting masculine or feminine enough for some of the elders' taste.
And - good news! - nobody gives a flying fig which tree they choose to piss behind.

.... and just how long it will take before gene manipulation will allow animal splicing with our own. But again, that's a whole different discussion

People in the west can afford to be far more tolerant of what was once deemed unacceptably different as wealth, personal freedom and overall life security has increased. In western society a person telling you they feel they are a woman trapped in a mans body is highly unlikely to have any effect upon yourself.

In a less developed country or say perhaps a small tribe in an amazon rain forrest, such a statement may cause a great deal of alarm, is the person a man or a woman? will they be able to hunt, fight, protect the village from wild animals and intruders? it throws a whole other set of concerns into the mix.

Click to expand...

Societies living at subsistence level vary in their handling of such matters - but apparently, if reports are at all trustworthy, few hunter/gatherers were or are as intolerant of deviation from sexual norm as modern Abrahamic fundies have been and remain, regardless of wealth.

Not necessarily. Savages are not nearly as primitive as modern fundamentalists (Christian or Muslim) - and they're far more pragmatic.
Whatever a person is able to do well is useful to the tribe: you don't waste a good fletcher or diver or herbalist, just because they're not acting masculine or feminine enough for some of the elders' taste.
And - good news! - nobody gives a flying fig which tree they choose to piss behind.

Click to expand...

Very true. I forgot how India is much more accepting of transgender people than the west (and has been for quite some time, even prior to British colonial events).

Funnily enough myself and some staff was having a discussion about this today. I work in the mental health care sector, and we had one man (now called a woman) transferred from a high secure unit to a low secure unit as he told staff he was being bullied as he wanted to call himself (herself) 'Jess' (name changed to protect identity) and that they now identified as a woman.

Jess has painted her nails (feet and fingers) pink, and insists they are now a woman (and by law as we must call them as such). It has caused quite a few problems as this person is very muscular and covered in tattoo's (some of them depicting sexual acts with a man and a woman).

The women in the ward object to them using female facilities, and 'Jess' has openly admitted to me that they have no intention of undergoing gender re-assignment and has only said what they said to get out of a horrible situation (an all male ward can be quite an intimidating place).

They have not told this to the psychologist in charge of course and I myself am bound by confidentiality rules (yes I cant even discuss such admissions with their psychologist, but I can do so here as I am not mentioning any real names).

But going back to the original poster - coming from the angle of delusion and mental health, I think we must be careful how we tread - I myself am worried about 'Jess' and their new identity (given my very strong suspicions that it is a ruse) and it also makes me worry how many others in today's society use such ruses to get out of bad situations, or even to get attention.

It is a great shame, because I have met and talked with people who are genuine about how they feel (as in not using gender transition as a means to an end) and I think that we must be compassionate whilst being vigilant at the same time.

My experience with 'Jess' makes me worry how many people use the wonderful freedom we have nowadays to be who we want to be as an excuse to use such freedom to a selfish advantage (if that is not an oxymoron...).

My experience with 'Jess' makes me worry how many people use the wonderful freedom we have nowadays to be who we want to be as an excuse to use such freedom to a selfish advantage (if that is not an oxymoron...).

Click to expand...

If this person is sly and manipulative, it's very likely that s/he would find some way around the rules, whatever the rules were. In closed facilities, there will always be disrupters. In the world at large, there will always be cheaters, liars, users and exploiters. In an environment of either kind where alienation is the norm, there will always be people desperate to be heard, to be noticed, to matter, and they will use whatever device is available.
I'd say: better nail polish than TNT.

The meaning of my observation was that your claim of suicide risk from enabling had no data support, argument, or evidence behind it. Your claim was in conflict with the correlation visible in the physical evidence, which was positive for non-enabling and suicide rate.

Click to expand...

You're still denying the science I already showed you, e.g. post-transition suicide rate. And you're trying to refute it with a meaningless assertion of a nonexistent correlation.

You've shown zero evidence of positive correlation between non-enabling and morbidity, even in the face of the fact that transgender suicide rate is comparable to those of people literally facing torture, starvation, etc.. But no doubt you'll keep repeating it like a mantra.

But that is not a false belief. It is an apparently true belief, well documented in the research.

Click to expand...

Only in researched base on self-reported belief. You cannot corroborate belief with the same subjective belief.

But they don't. None of their beliefs appear to be physiologically false - they do not suffer from delusions of possessing anatomy they do not possess, for example, and their brain structures agree with their self-reports of mental functioning.

Click to expand...

Again:

Delusion doesn't require that they deny genetic sex, only that they hold false beliefs in the face of it. You don't have to deny radio waves to hold the false belief that they are controlling your thoughts.

Every few pages, I have the irresistible urge to reiterate a central problem:
Since you can't possibly know anyone else's internal experience, why refuse to acknowledge that this is the case?
Since their gender identity is not your responsibility and poses no threat to you,
What gives you the right to make any determinations regarding it?

Click to expand...

Since you can't possibly know that someone isn't hearing actual voices in their heads, why refuse to acknowledge that this is the case?
Since their mental state is not your responsibility and poses no threat to you.
What gives you the right to make any determinations regarding it?

No, I'm not. You are pretending that "transition" is taking place in a society that enables trans identity.
You are also obscuring the distinction between enabling in general, especially through laws and the like, and specific medical treatments or approaches that may or may not be good ideas.

You posted it - the high suicide rate among trans people in modern American society, a harshly non-enabling one.

Again:
Delusion doesn't require that they deny genetic sex, only that they hold false beliefs in the face of it. You don't have to deny radio waves to hold the false belief that they are controlling your thoughts.

Click to expand...

Again: what false beliefs to these people hold? Be specific, as in your analogy.

Because by your analogy there, you are in the position of claiming that the radio waves (the "genetic sex") control the thoughts of people who are claiming that they don't.

Their brain structures are never those of their typical desired gender, and neuroplasticity accounts for as close as they do manage to come.

Click to expand...

For whatever reason, their brain structures are not those of the gender you are trying to assign to them. They instead resemble those of the gender they claim as their own. That supports their claims, and is evidence for the validity of their beliefs.

No, I'm not. You are pretending that "transition" is taking place in a society that enables trans identity.
You are also obscuring the distinction between enabling in general, especially through laws and the like, and specific medical treatments or approaches that may or may not be good ideas.

Click to expand...

enable - permit, allow​

How do people transition if it's not allowed? Are there laws against it?

You posted it - the high suicide rate among trans people in modern American society, a harshly non-enabling one.

Click to expand...

A society where people transition regularly, the last President issued an executive order on transgender bathrooms, and many state and municipal government laws and company policies do enshrine transgender-chosen facility access.

For whatever reason, their brain structures are not those of the gender you are trying to assign to them. They instead resemble those of the gender they claim as their own. That supports their claims, and is evidence for the validity of their beliefs.